- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:06:11 +0000
- To: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Thomas Schneider <schneidt@CS.MAN.AC.UK>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
hmm, I think this case is a different one: it requires to characterise those humans who love all their children...i.e., you look at a person, check the image of 'loves' and 'hasChild' and, depending on the outcome, make them an instance of 'GoodParent'... I guess that DL safe rules would be one way out, at least on the individual level. Another work-around would be to add a sub-property, hasChildAndLovesIt, of hasChild and loves, and see how far you get with this, which strongly depends on your modelling and on the other stuff you say....e.g., if you never *say* that somebody loves their children, we can always assume that the elements that somebody loves are disjoint from their children... Cheers, Uli On 1 Mar 2010, at 14:21, Alan Rector wrote: > Isn't this a variant of the "all-all" question - Uli's "Cat-lovers" > problem > > - e.g. > > "All people with driving licenses are authorised to drive all cars" > > It is just turning it into an equivalence class statment: > > "All people authorised to drive all cars" equivalent to "People with > driving licenses" > > replace "authorised to drive all cars" with "loves all children" > > and you are close. > > That it has to be his child complicates it a bit, but it is part of > the same family of problems, > which we know have no simple solution in OWL DL. > We know this can only be done with awkward constructions involving > individuals. > > Alan > > On 23 Feb 2010, at 19:10, Thomas Schneider wrote: > >> Hi Lennart, >> >> I can only see two ways, and they lead out of OWL-DL, but perhaps >> someone else here has a better idea? >> >> (1) If you use Boolean operators on roles, you can define a new >> role hasChildButDoesNotLoveIt to be "hasChild and not loves". You >> can then define the desired class as GoodParent = >> hasChildButDoesNotLoveIt only Nothing. >> >> (2) If you define a new property p to be a superproperty of the >> chain "hasChild o inv(loves)", then you can define a GoodParent to >> be equivalent to not p some Self. Unfortunately, only simple object >> property expressions are allowed in hasSelf restrictions and p is >> composite due to the first statement. >> >> I suppose this doesn't really help ... :-S >> >> Cheers >> >> Thomas >> >> On 23 Feb 2010, at 15:35, Lennart Bierkandt wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am developing an ontology for a linguistic typological database, >>> where I need to describe a class of the form: >>> { x | ∀y( r1(x,y) -> r2(x,y) ) } >>> As explaining the real use of this would be to complicated, >>> imagine a class denoting e.g. "people who love (r2: loves) all >>> their children (r1: hasChild) (or haven't any)". >>> >>> In prose it doesn't seem to be too complex, but I didn't find a >>> way to do it.. >>> CAN this be expressed in OWL-DL? and if, how? (and if not, in OWL- >>> FULL?) >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Lennart Bierkandt >>> >>> >>> >> >> + >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) >> cs.man.ac.uk | >> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ >> ~schneidt | >> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 >> 2756136 | >> | University of >> Manchester | >> | Oxford Road _/// >> _ | >> | Manchester M13 9PL >> (o~o) | >> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- >> OOOo--+ >> >> Tampa (n.) >> The sound of a rubber eraser coming to rest after dropping off a desk >> in a very quiet room. >> >> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ----------------------- > Alan Rector > Professor of Medical Informatics > School of Computer Science > University of Manchester > Manchester M13 9PL, UK > TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6149/6188 > FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204 > www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector > www.co-ode.org > http://clahrc-gm.nihr.ac.uk/ > > > > >
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 15:07:01 UTC